SPEARE'S TIPS - The Films of 2/8/13

[Chienfantome]

Inflation definitely changes everything in terms of BO records. US BO records are bound to be broken often because of it.

[Buscemi]

Inflation has also diluted the term blockbuster. Do you think anyone talks about films such as The General's Daughter or Scary Movie 3 anymore?

Also, someone needs to do a list of the worst-reviewed films to open to $30 million or more. Because not surprisingly, critics saw Identity Thief as dumb but audiences still ate it up (what is it with mainstream audiences and insulting characters and premises anyway?).

[Shrykespeare]

Surprised by Identity Thief, I knew it could go big, just like it could quite easily have gone bust. For that reason I avoided it on most slates. I doubt it's hold will be fantastic going by word of mouth and the wide openings of Die Hard and Safe Haven splitting the audience next weekend, but still, it should be good for $80m minimum now.

And that's a little harsh on Toy Story, Shryke, adjusting for inflation it made $340m, a gross which would usually have a good shot at topping the annual charts.

I wasn't being harsh on Toy Story, BTW. I was just amazed that in the 90's, an entire year went by with no film reaching $200M. True, it was a rarer occurrence back then than it is now, but that must have been a truly "off" year to have such miserable box office numbers, especially when you consider the numbers that were reached in the years immediately prior:

1994: Forrest Gump ($329M) and The Lion King ($312M)
1993: Jurassic Park ($357M) and Mrs. Doubtfire ($219M)
1992: Aladdin ($217M)
1991: Terminator 2: Judgment Day ($204M)
1990: Home Alone ($285M) and Ghost ($217M)
1989: Batman ($251M)

Now, 1986-1988 also had no film reach $200M domestically, but prior to that, you'd have to go back to the 1970's.

[Buscemi]

It's funny that you mention 1991. That year was one of the worst for the box office as a lot of anticipated movies either underperformed or outright flopped. The number of Summer movies that stumbled out the gate that year would be unthinkable today.

Meanwhile, 1995's total gross was actually higher than 1994's (but ticket sales were down 2%). I'd say that the reason why no film hit $200 million was due to the high volume of product that year (this was also the year that the megaplex boom began).

[Shrykespeare]

Weekend Estimates

Top 12:
5 points - Identity Thief, $36.6M
4 points - Warm Bodies, $11.5M
3 points - Side Effects, $10.0M
Silver Linings Playbook, $6.9M
1 point - Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, $5.8M
Mama, $4.3M
Zero Dark Thirty, $4.0M
Argo, $2.5M
Django Unchained, $2.3M
Bullet to the Head, $2.0M
Top Gun 3D, $1.9M
Lincoln, $1.9M

PTA (Dec/Jan):
5 points - The Gatekeepers
4 points - Identity Thief
3 points - A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III
2 points - Quartet
1 point - Side Effects

PTA (Feb):
5 points - The Gatekeepers
4 points - Identity Thief
3 points - A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III
2 points - Side Effects
1 point - Warm Bodies

FINALLY, Amour falls out of the PTA race!

[numbersix]

I did not see Identity Theft coming. I should have known, though, as it was the only real comedy of 2013 (and no real upcoming competition until the younger-oriented 21 and Over). That's the 13th biggest opening for Feb. Next week gas 4 films so more competition, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this hold well.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

Inflation has also diluted the term blockbuster. Do you think anyone talks about films such as The General's Daughter or Scary Movie 3 anymore?

A blockbuster doesn't mean a movie is memorable, or even good. Just that it was popular at the time.

[Buscemi]

When the term blockbuster was coined, the occurrence of one was extremely rare (for example, Jaws was the first film to hit $100 million in its initial run) and even in the 1980's, you were lucky to have five or six. Now with 25-30 titles reaching $100 million each year, the title of blockbuster is not as special anymore.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

When the term blockbuster was coined, the occurrence of one was extremely rare (for example, Jaws was the first film to hit $100 million in its initial run) and even in the 1980's, you were lucky to have five or six. Now with 25-30 titles reaching $100 million each year, the title of blockbuster is not as special anymore.

True. Probably with inflation and rising budgets, we'll see it when $100M means nothing and $200M is the new floor for a "hit".

[Chienfantome]

Well it's already like that for many films. Films for which reaching $100M and yet not being considered success. WHen you've got a $200M+ budgeted film that can only grab $100M, you can say it's not a hit.

[Geezer]

Yeah Boush, its not that "blockbusters" are watered down, it is that what it takes to earn true "blockbuster" status has changed. 100 million doesn't cut it anymore.

[Buscemi]

But has the meaning of the term ever changed? No, it hasn't. It's still considered a blockbuster if the film grosses $100 million. I've said many times that Hollywood is stuck in the 1980's and this is more proof of that.

In the modern age, it's gotten to the point where a film is considered a flop if it doesn't hit $200 million ON OPENING WEEKEND. That is capitalism at its worst. Geezer, I've seen that you are blatantly capitalist but even you should know that is a ridiculous mark to reach (if it's not a movie that has an ad campaign that's lasted several years and had billions poured into it).

[Shrykespeare]

In the modern age, it's gotten to the point where a film is considered a flop if it doesn't hit $200 million ON OPENING WEEKEND.

Which means that 99.99% percent of all films are flops? Not every film aims THAT high...

[Buscemi]

Don't tell that to today's audiences. The Dark Knight Rises was considered a flop by some because it didn't break The Avengers' record. The Hobbit was considered by many a flop because it didn't hit $100 million opening weekend (despite the fact that it opened when school was in session and during Hanukkah).

Hyperbole has become a common language now. Either people set the bar way too high and expect insane figures or they set it too low and congratulate failure. There's no middle ground.

[Geezer]

In the modern age, it's gotten to the point where a film is considered a flop if it doesn't hit $200 million ON OPENING WEEKEND. That is capitalism at its worst. Geezer, I've seen that you are blatantly capitalist but even you should know that is a ridiculous mark to reach (if it's not a movie that has an ad campaign that's lasted several years and had billions poured into it).

Honestly, I'm not even sure what the hell you are talking about here. No one thinks this way, and I'm not going to argue politics with you, but you have mine ass-backwards.